Mike Talbot

A number of TMG wish-list items have recently cropped up on the list and it would seem useful to have them grouped in a separate forum.

 

I think there should be at least a forum for suggested improvements to the current version of TMG. This would allow others to comment (including adding their support, to give Wholly Genes a measure of how much it is desired). It would also be a place for developers (or others) to identify problems with implementing each suggestion, and possibly ask for direction on different implementation options. 

 

Suggestions that already have a solution should be answered on the Wish list forum, and then some time after I think they should be moved to the regular forum, since that is where solutions to users' problems are normally recorded.

 

When items have been accepted for development, then we would know that Wholly Genes are trying to make it work. That would not mean that the idea would be reality on the next release, but at least we would know the developers are spending time trying to solve the problem.

 

Suggestions could be removed some time after a new release implements the suggestion.  If a suggestion is rejected, developers should say why so we would know why we would not expect it.

 

Pierce

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What am I missing here?

In my opinion, the result of dividing the forum would be to assure that each post (wish or not) would be viewed by fewer people.

One can respond now to a wishlist item or any other post! There is not one thing that cannot be done in the current, single forum. Also, a lack of response to a wish list item doesn't mean that it is not a good idea. It could just mean that the wish, as posted, says it all.

Best wishes (pun intended),

Mike

Recently a fellow genealogist sent me a genealogy report created in "Family Origins" (FO) software.

Each photo appears in the left and the paragraph wraps tightly around the pic making a VERY nice looking report!

I am unable to do this without HOURS of work editing and moving EACH photo after the report is created.

(If it is a report with a large number of foks included)

She does it all with the touch of a button! 

I am aware this can be done when you create a website with Second Site...

but surely TMG should be able to do what FO can?

When comes time to create a large report to use to print a book, I just DREAD the editing I will have to do using TMG!!

Of course it does an EXCELLANT job of producing a report if I do NOT include exhibits...

sigh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I second your wish with the following ammendments:

add option to include primary image only.

add option to standardize or limit size of image, as per VCF

Mike

No, it gives you the descendants of everyone who is selected. So when you have gathered a person and his or her ancestors, click the "Select All" button, then add Descendants for one generation. That gives you the siblings of your "subject" and of all the ancestors except the oldest generation. If you don't want the children of your subject, de-select that person and spouse before adding the Descendants.

 

In the Focus Group there is no such thing as a single "subject." You may view the first person you put in the group as a "subject" but the FG doesn't care. As far as it's concerned, it's only a group of people.

 

The "Add Others" operations always refer to whoever is selected in the Focus Group when you click the "Add Others" button. You can select one person, everyone, or any specific group, and add others related to them in the way(s) specified in the "Add Others" box.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many thanks Terry. I didn't understand that you could make multiple passes on a focus group and gradually "grow it." After 3 passes, I got almost what I wanted. The only thing missing from perfection were the siblings and their spouses of the Nth generation of ancestors.

This result could be altered by asking in pass 1 for N+1 generations of ancestors.

So I have an easy choice between a bit too much data, a bit too little data or a ludicrous 3rd choice of carefully deleting those in the N+1 generation after pass 3.

I can settle for having to pick between the 1st two alternatives above, based on the intended usage and constraints of the focus group.

Thanks again,

Mike Talbot

Mike,

 

Don't we have that now by adding descendants for one generation? You do have to take care about the youngest generation if children exist that you don't want to include, and the oldest if you have cut off the common ancestor. But I find it works fine for most cases. Or am I missing something?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Descendants for 1 generation only gets you descendants of the subject. It does not apply to the subjects parents, grandparents, etc.

Mike

Please consider an option to include siblings in Focus Groups. If "spouse" option is checked also include siblings' spouses.

It sure would be a lot easier (though not elegant either, since there was no year zero), if TMG would allow negative and 2 digit years. The detail line is already there for showing BC.

Elegant? Not even close, but here's something that occured to me after reading the thread on this subject on TMG-L recently. This assumes that year One (1) is the beginning (or 100 years before) of the Jewish calendar or some other baseline of that era.

 

TMG Date constrictions to years 100-3000 might be worked around for biblical dates as follows:

 

Divide biblical dates by two and enter this date in sort column. This will give sorting capability up to 6000 years, give or take a few odd_year divide problems.

 

This should make TMG sort correctly.

 

Enter biblical date years 100- 3000 correctly in "non-sort" Data field.

 

Enter years 3000-6000  incorrectly with a minus 3000 year offset and a "circa", "before", or "after" modifier that will print in RTF reports. That is, the year 4751 would be entered as 1751.

 

Then edit the report in a Text Editor (Word) to find all instances of "circa", "before", or "after" dates and manually add 3000 years.

 

Might work. Haven't tried it. Assumes a separate project, perhaps. <g>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do users handle BC dates in TMG? There is also difficulty in entering 2 digit AD dates.

Is there an elegant way of entering BC dates and pre-100 AD dates available? planned?

Thanks,

Mike

Text Report pictures:

Please consider the following options for exhibit pictures in all text reports (Ahnentafel, Descendant, Hourglass, etc.):

If pictures include in report:

+ Maximum picture size (similar to that nice feature in VCF charts)

Width x Height, proportionately shrink larger pics. to fit,

Added option, to expand smaller pics. to fit

+ Option to include primary picture, only, with each individual

If selected:

Precede text lines with pic. or

Embed pic. in text lines,

left or right side

Thanks,

Mike

Ahnentafel – Direct Line Report

Please. Provide an option to include the spouse of record for each generation.

This report, without the spouse, is of extremely limited value.

Thanks,

Mike

Ahnentafel Report Index:

Please. Provide an option to Index the Report by Ahnentafel Number, not page number.

Is there a way to do this, now?

I’ve never seen a professional publication where there was not an alphabetical index which pointed to the Ahnentafel Number, thus leading the reader to a specific person instead of a page containing 30 or more people.

Thanks,

Mike

It seemed to be a point on the curve, on the subject of case sensitivity.

 

However, if it is determined that, for whatever reason, that GEDCOM files need case sensitivity in paths to the multimedia files, the paths can be easily globally changed in MS Word Find/Replace UP TO the actual jpg file name.

 

The individual file names will have to be handled manually.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whether which programs or computers are case sensitive or not is not an issue. An issue is why should the case of file names be changed by a GEDCOM creation, ever???

The human eye is case sensitive, so leave the users case selection in file names alone!!!!!!!!!

If you have over 5000 exhibit files, which form of the following portrait file name would make more visual sense on a screen?

BEAUREGARDPIERREGUSTAVETOUTANT.JPG

or

BeauregardPierreGustaveToutant.jpg

Thanks for reading,

Mike